acronis_fetch_alert

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether dismissed alerts are excluded from the response by default, what fields come back, or what an invalid/unknown ID yields. For a single-record retrieval where the default visibility of dismissed alerts is a meaningful behavior, this is a real gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple single-record fetch with a fully documented nested schema and no output schema, so it does not need extensive prose. Still, given many sibling alert tools, the definition would benefit from a sentence on when to use it and on default exclusion of dismissed alerts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the UUID pattern plus the show_deleted description are already documented in the schema. The phrase "by ID" merely restates the required path parameter, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Fetches the information about the alert") and scopes it to a single record via "by ID," which distinguishes it in intent from acronis_fetch_all_alerts or acronis_fetch_alerts_grouped_by_scope. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"By ID" implies the precondition that an alert ID is already known, which is some usage signal. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over acronis_fetch_all_alerts or acronis_search, and no mention of what happens if the ID is unknown or the alert is dismissed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.